The Left-Fascist Axis. Again

The Left-Fascist Axis. Again

By James Lewis

We are seeing another Left-fascist axis in our time, recapitulating Stalin’s (and worldwide communism’s) embrace of Hitler’s Germany. The Gaza flotilla crisis was set up by the radical Left (Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jodie Evans and other Obama buds), in collusion with Hamas, which is about as fascist as they get. If you doubt it, watch Hamas TV on the MEMRI website. They are the worst. They teach toddlers about the glories of dying for Allah.  Even Fatah thinks Hamas is a throwback to the Dark Ages.

In the Gaza flotilla, the Turks who yelled out “Khaibar! Khaibar!” as they were trying to kill Israeli soldiers, were members of the Turkish branch of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood. They yelled out “Khaibar!” because that massacre of Jews was Mohammed’s own Auschwitz. That doesn’t leave any doubt about who they are. Martyrdom is just a means to an end, and that end is “Khaibar.” The media always forget to tell us that part.
Words matter, which is why the Left is always making up new words for themselves, to disguise who they really are.  The Left isn’t  Communist any more, they are “progressive” — which leaves the rest of us  back in 1776. “Progressives” always know which way to find “progress,” and it always comes down to stomping on the rest of us. Because if you’re not “progressive” you must be an enemy of  “progress.”  
The radical Left  hasn’t changed one smidgen since Stalin. The Left still believes in global totalitarianism. Stalin is dead, but Stalinism is on the march. Listen to the stomping of their boots.
The Left is a throwback to all the ancient utopian cults, the Mayans, Genghis Khan and the Yellow Emperor of China, Idi Amin Dada and Robert Mugabe. It’s the ancient Egyptian priesthood, which was also a cult run by a totalitarian clique. In ancient Egypt you had to die to get to utopia, but the psychology is always the same.  Utopian cults always appeal to suckers. They are a very nasty part of the human condition. But there’s nothing new there, and they are certainly not “progressive.” They are a throwback.
Obama doesn’t look like a normal American because he is a High Priest. Harry Truman wouldn’t recognize him, but King Tut would. Obama has all the arrogance and ignorance of a Pharaoh.
So here are two ways to simplify the daily media circus. First, the media are the cult of the Left, trying to twist your mind. The “Left” equals global totalitarianism, which is Stalinism, which is Leninism, which is radical feminism, which is the hateful racism of the Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan.  Same story, different labels. Keep it simple.
Whatever mask they try on, radical leftists are internationalists — meaning that they are against America as a sovereign nation. That’s Obama’s real beef against us, and it’s why he will never enforce our borders. Sure, leftists are all “patriots” in their own minds, because they worship the prairie flowers and the pretty mountains.  And they all despise MacDonald’s hamburgers and eat arugula, because at bottom they are the most amazing snobs.  America is just one little piece of Planet Gaia, where everybody will live in peace and harmony because Obama or Algore will rule us with an iron fist. It’s all for our own good.
So, the Left hasn’t changed since ancient times. That’s why Harvard has a “speech code,” courtesy of the likes of Elena Kagan and the PC Commissars. People can’t be trusted to say what’s on their minds.  They might hurt somebody’s feelings. Speech codes are ancient ways to control people.  All the prehistoric little Hitlers had speech taboos.
The second useful word is “fascist.” Academics spend their lives trying to define that word. But if  you believe in killing people until they surrender to your totalitarian hokum; if you want to enslave women, kids, Jews, Christians, nonconformist Muslims (like the Bahai’is), gays, Africans in the Sudan, Marxists (yes), Trotskyites, liberals, and anybody who thinks the US Constitution is a good idea, you’re a fascist. Simple, reasonable definition.
So we are seeing the Hitler-Stalin Pact, Take 2. The motivation is identical. These people  hate the modern world, just like the Nazis and Lenin did.  Hitler wanted to go back to the Nordic gods. His utopia was in a fantasy past. Lenin placed his utopia in the distant future. If you’re a coercive utopian you have to dream of  a long-ago  past or a misty future, as long as it’s impossible to see what it’s really like.
Today the Saudis want to go back to Mohammed in the 7th century, and the Twelvers in Iran want to go back to the Hidden Mahdi in the 11th century. They all want to make utopia by force and terror. 
The Left-fascists are intolerant of individualism, liberty, free speech and electoral legitimacy, which is why they always try to sabotage constitutional government. Kagan on the Supreme Court. Obama as Pharaoh in the Oval. Why bow down to the King of Saudi and the Emperor of Japan? They are both medieval reactionaries. Obama bowed down to them, but he was really giving the high sign to America. That’s Obama’s schtick.
We are seeing a re-run of the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1938. That Left-Fascist alliance fell apart when Hitler flipped and decided to send tanks into Poland and Russia instead.
It is what Freud called a “repetition compulsion.” It happens over and over again, because these people don’t live in reality. That’s why they are dangerous. They can never figure out what went wrong last time, so they keep trying it again.  They live in egomaniacal fantasies, and real people keep getting in their way. Off with their heads!
The last time a Left-Fascist Axis rose to power it led to World War Two and the Cold War. Maybe the only way to win is to make them fight each other. That’s how we came out of it before.
I don’t know how decent people will prevail this time. I think we will, because we have done so over the centuries. But we are in another Long War with some real bad hot spots. The enemy today is both the Left and the fascists.
Read the news and you’ll see it every day.
They’re baaaaack!

Crisis not ‘wasted’: Obama to nationalize oil companies?

Crisis not ‘wasted’: Obama to nationalize oil companies?

June 7th, 2010

By Drew Zahn, WND

 Will Obama Nationalize Oil?

While management of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has shaken many Americans’ confidence in the current administration, some voices in entertainment, news and academia see the crisis as reason to give the federal government even more power – namely, the ability to take over the oil industry.

The notion is catching on with the public, too. A CBS poll recently tabulated 63 percent of Americans believe the Obama administration should be doing more in response to the spill, and activists working through the SeizeBP.org website are planning protests in 50 cities throughout the week demanding the federal government take over BP, the company that owns and operates the leaking oil drill.

The Seize BP organization is demanding BP assets be nationalized not only to clean up the spill, but also to compensate families affected by what the organization calls “this capitalist-made disaster.”

Since BP’s offshore drill began gushing crude into the Gulf of Mexico in April, the Obama administration has deferred to the corporation’s expertise in seeking to stop the flow.

But as the ongoing environmental disaster has extended beyond 40 days and counting, entertainer Rosie O’Donnell, political pundit James Carville and former Clinton cabinet member Robert Reich have joined those calling for a federal takeover of the situation.

On her “Rosie Radio” program earlier this week, O’Donnell quoted Carville, who told CNN’s John King, “This president needs to tell BP, ‘I’m your daddy, I’m in charge. You’re going to do what we say.’”

“James Carville said the best thing,” O’Donnell affirmed, adding that she’d like to see Obama say, “’I’m signing an executive order and I’m taking over the BP oil spill.’ Like, boom, boom, boom. Someone has to do it.”

Read More:

White House To Tea Parties: It’s Bush’s Fault

White House To Tea Parties: It’s Bush’s Fault

April 19th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

UT0090183

Fox News:

Tea Partiers, the Obama administration is on your side.

That’s been the message from the White House over the past few days, as top officials dispute charges that Washington is on a spending binge and encourage conservative protesters to count their blessings.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, when asked about the Tea Party protests, said in an interview Sunday that the Obama administration is paying more attention to deficit and spending concerns than the Bush administration did.

“We’ve just been through eight years where many people said deficits don’t matter. We can pass huge tax cuts, pass huge new programs without paying for them. That debate has changed fundamentally,” Geithner said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“You don’t hear people say anymore deficits don’t matter. You don’t hear people saying we can pass enormous expansions in government without paying for it. That’s an important change.”

And President Obama said at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser Thursday that Tea Party activists should “be saying thank you” to him for the tax cuts passed by his administration.

The change in tone comes as surveys show distrust in the government is rising to historic levels. A Pew Research Center survey released on Monday found almost 80 percent of Americans say they don’t trust Washington.

Dana Perino, former White House press secretary under the Bush administration and a Fox News contributor, said that the Obama administration is wise to try to appeal to the Tea Partiers. But she said the claim that Obama is tackling the deficit is off base.

“He’s right, in one sense, to finally stop degrading people who affiliate with the Tea Party movement. But if his policies meshed up with his rhetoric, it would probably be a stronger sell point,” Perino said.

Obama has established a bipartisan commission to study ways to bring down the national debt and rein in deficits. But his spending has far outpaced that of his predecessor.

President Bush ran up a $458.6 billion deficit during his last full year in office. Obama ran up a $1.4 trillion deficit in fiscal 2009 — that covered part of Bush’s final year, but budget projections show deficits will continue to top $1 trillion for several years under Obama.

GOP May Do Their Job And Block Federal Power Grab Being Disguised For Sale To Public As “Wall Street Reform”

GOP May Do Their Job And Block Federal Power Grab Being Disguised For Sale To Public As “Wall Street Reform”

April 14th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

communistobama

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican leaders, responding to growing resistance in their party to a financial regulations overhaul being pushed by President Obama, are considering ways to potentially block the legislation if it makes it to the Senate floor without more bipartisan input.

The options being discussed include sending a letter to the Democratic leadership signed by all 41 Republican senators threatening to unify against the legislation, Dow Jones reports. The GOP has enough votes to mount a filibuster.

The latest developments come on a day when the White House and congressional Republicans sparred over how to protect taxpayers against “too big to fail” financial institutions, sharply disagreeing on whether legislation backed by Obama would leave the government on the hook for bailing out firms whose failure might threaten the economy.

Obama, meeting with House and Senate leaders of both parties, insisted on a tough bill, specifically singling out oversight of previously unregulated financial instruments. How to regulate these products, known as derivatives, has become the latest point of friction between Democrats and Republicans.

Senate Republicans met later Wednesday night to discuss their “overwhelming opposition” to the Democrats’ handling of the bill, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota told Dow Jones. “What we would like to do is have a seat at the table.”

As the Senate prepares to begin debate in less than two weeks on legislation revamping regulation of the financial industry, the question of bailouts has elevated the sharp partisan differences over how to respond to the 2008 crisis that caused a near meltdown on Wall Street.

Both sides were testing populist messages, seizing on public disdain for big financial institutions. The White House argued opposition to the bill amounted to support for Wall Street banks; Republicans countered that the Obama-backed bill would perpetuate bailouts for Wall Street firms rather than end them.

Obama, speaking briefly to reporters before the closed meeting began, said he was “absolutely confident that the bill that emerges is going to be a bill that prevents bailouts. That’s the goal.”

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner later said that the cost of taking down large failing financial institutions will be borne by big banks, not taxpayers. The House and Senate bills call for funds, financed by large financial institutions, to cover the costs of liquidating firms deemed too large to go through bankruptcy proceedings. Republicans have argued that the funds would not be sufficient and that taxpayers could still be on the hook to pay to deal with giant failures. They also argue that emergency loan authority by the Federal Reserve could also amount to a financial bailout.

The give-and-take, which officials said was more heated in public than in private, set the terms for the final debate on yet another of Obama’s priorities. The president is hoping the Senate acts quickly and passes a bill that can be easily reconciled with legislation that passed the House in December. But Democrats need at least one Republican to overcome procedural hurdles and the looming question was whether the administration and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would simply seek to pick off Republican senators or build a coalition through bipartisan negotiations.

Reid signaled Wednesday that he was ready to proceed quickly. Reid had initially planned to bring the bill up the week of April 26, but officials said Wednesday that he now might seek to begin debate next week.

Asked after the White House meeting whether it was time to abandon efforts to negotiate with Republicans, Reid said: “We’re going to move on the bill very quickly. They can offer all the amendments they want on the floor.”

Sen. Christopher Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, agreed to meet again with the committee’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. Aides said Dodd, D-Conn., believed he and Shelby could add language to the bill that would address the bailout question without fundamentally altering the bill.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., a banking committee member who has negotiated with Dodd, said the rhetoric over potential bailouts had become overheated. “The fact is,” he added, “I think we could fix those in about five minutes.”

Earlier, Dodd angrily accused Republicans of “political chicanery” and appeared on the verge of abandoning talks.

“My patience is running out, my patience is running out,” he said from the Senate floor. “I’m not going to continue doing this if all I’m getting from the other side is the suggestions somehow that this is a partisan effort.”

Aides said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell in the meeting urged Obama not to cut off bipartisan talks. Afterward, McConnell still insisted that the Senate bill “will lead to endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street banks.”

That was the message McConnell delivered earlier Wednesday on the Senate floor — the second such attack on the bill in as many days. He said the White House plans the same approach on financial reforms that it took on health care: “Put together a partisan bill, then jam it through on a strictly partisan basis.”

White House economist Austan Goolsbee dismissed the GOP objections as “totally disingenuous.”

“Bailouts are forbidden,” he said in an interview. “There will only be wipeouts. They (the banks) will clean up the messes. If somebody fails, they’re done — they’re toast. The management is fired. They’re broken up or sold off or liquidated.”

Goolsbee added the GOP broadside was “pretty cheeky of the Republican leadership,” and an effort to divert attention from its efforts to stop regulation of the derivatives market. “They’re trying to dramatically weaken and put loopholes into that derivatives regulation,” he said.

Republicans think they continue to score huge points with voters by opposing the health care overhaul that narrowly passed Congress with no GOP votes. They are taking a similar approach on financial regulations.

The White House says GOP lawmakers are using campaign strategist talking points to label the legislation as a bank bailout, regardless of the truth.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers